The criticisms aimed at West appear to be aimed at those portions of the
reports that do not purport to be the court's own opinion. But bear in
mind that, at least for cases before 1816, the published reports of the
opinions themselves (later reproduced in US Reports) are hardly sacrosanct.
The Supreme Court did not have an official reporter until Henry Wheaton.
He was informally appointed in 1816, and became the first official reporter
when the act of Congress providing for an official reporter was enacted in
March of 1817. Before then, the publishers of unofficial reporters (such
as Cranch), influenced by marketing decisions, exercised their discretion
in deciding what Court opinions or portions thereof to publish. The
opinions that did appear in the unofficial reporters were often inaccurate
due to delay and expense in reporting. Such failings may have been
"inherent in a system dedicated to the preservation of opinions . . . often
extemporaneously delivered from only the most rudimentary notes." Craig
Joyce, The Rise of the Supreme Court Reporter, 83 Mich. L. Rev. 1291,
1304-05, 1312 (1985) (discussing the work of Dallas and Cranch).
As part of an effort to improve speed and accuracy, the Justices promised
Wheaton "any written opinions they might prepare, or notes they might make
in connection with their oral opinions." Id. at 1321.
It was not until 1834 that the Court provided for the filing of its own
written opinions with its own clerk, "and even then oral opinions were not
invariably reduced to writing." Id. at 1298 n.46. Perhaps not
coincidentally, the Court promulgated the rule providing for the filing of
its own opinions the same week that counsel for the Court's first official
reporter asserted at oral argument in a copyright case he brought against
its second official reporter that "there is no law or custom to put
opinions upon record." Id. at 1377.
Ed Hartnett
Seton Hall
Bryan Wildenthal
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: Discussion cc:
list for con law Subject: West "editing" of Supreme
Court cases
professors
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
v.ucla.edu>
06/11/03 11:53 PM
Please respond to
Discussion list for
con law professors
It struck me that the messages attached below, forwarded by our library
director, about "editing" of Supreme Court opinions by West, have
considerable relevance for those of us whose craft of constitutional law
requires us to have recourse so often to Supreme Court opinions. I have
noticed similar things in studying numerous old cases for my 14th amendment
articles and forthcoming book. What I have seen is mainly that the West
versions of 19th century cases include a lot of typos and mistakes, and do
indeed omit some of the front material mentioned in the below messages.
Also, the Westlaw on-line versions of all cases, up to the present day,
erase italics, which is a real problem when you want to quote verbatim,
especially for a writer like me who likes to use insertion of emphasis
(always identified as my own or not) as a stylistic tool.
I recently came to the frustrated conclusion that I will have to photocopy
by hand the original official US Reports versions of more than 50 key cases
that are important sources for my current book.
I am disturbed to hear that even more extensive modifications appear as
described in the below message. This certainly strengthens my unwillingness
to rely on West, or especially on Westlaw!
Bryan Wildenthal
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Jacobs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Have any of you received reports about the issue noted by Mark Lambert
which came to me from a colleague monitoring another list?
I find this Bowdlerization without notice disturbing and feel it should not
go unnoticed by law librarianship.
Roger
>>From: "Mark Lambert" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Has anyone else encounted the "editing" done by West of early Supreme
>>Court Reports as noted below?
>>
>>Any related experiences, examples, comments?
>>
>>Thank you.
>>Mark
>>
>>Mark Lambert
>>Special Collections and Government Documents Librarian
>>Fred Parks Law Library
>>South Texas College of Law
>>Houston, TX
>>
>>From: Thomas H. Martin
>>
>>Matter: Does Westlaw corrupt the texts?
>>
>>Has anybody else had the experience of comparing a Westlaw-reported case
>>to the printed account of the case, and finding significant variations?
>>
>>I have told you about the 1804 Supreme Court case on maritime salvage,
>>Mason v. Ship Blaireau, 2 Cranch (6 U.S.) 240, that I use in my
>>Restitution class. Last night I was reading this case in the Westlaw
>>version. I suddenly realized that some language that I remembered from
>>Cranch's report was missing. I then compared the texts more carefully.
>>
>>Westlaw modernizes and summarizes Cranch's report, to no good effect that
>>I can see. Compare:
>>
>>
>>Cranch: The ship Le Blaireau, James Anquetil, master, on a voyage from
>>Martinique to Bordeaux, laden with sugar, on the 30th of March, 1803, at
>>10 o'clock at night, in Lat. 35.46 N.-- Long 46. west from Paris, was run
>>down by a Spanish 64 gun ship, called the St. Julien, commanded by
>>Francisco Mondragora, which struck the bow of the Blaireau, carried away
>>her bowsprit, and cutwater close to the seam of the stem, started three
>>planks of the bends, and all above them, and crushed to pieces the
>>larboard cat-head. Before morning there were three and a half feet of
>>water in the hold. . . .
>>
>>
>>Westlaw: The French merchant ship, The Blaireau, laden with sugar and
>>coffee, and bound from Martinique to Bordeaux, on the night of the 30th
>>of March, was run down by the Spanish sixty-four gun ship, called the St.
>>Julien, in latitude 35 degrees 46' north 46 degrees west from
>>Paris. The Blaireau was greatly injured by the rencounter [sic.,
>>"rencounter" in original], and before morning there were three feet of
>>water in her hold.
>>
>>Westlaw has reduced important points to summaries and has entirely
>>omitted the arguments of counsel which are so important and
>>characteristic a feature of early Supreme Court reports. The overall
>>effect is to put a Reader's Digest version of Cranch's report before the
>>Westlaw user with no warning that the Westlaw text is not authentic.
>>
>>I find this startling indeed.
LawLibDir mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/lawlibdir
